Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1 THOMAS P. O’BRIEN
United States Attorney
2 CHRISTINE C. EWELL
Assistant United States Attorney
3 Chief, Criminal Division
MARK AVEIS (Cal. Bar No. 107881)
4 EDWARD E. ALON (Cal. Bar No. 207287)
Assistant United States Attorneys
5 1200 United States Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
6 Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-4477/3825
7 Facsimile: (213) 894-8601
Email: mark.aveis@usdoj.gov
8 edward.alon@usdoj.gov
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. CR 08-224-PSG
)
13 Plaintiff, ) GOVERNMENT’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S
) OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS:
14 v. ) 1) TO DISMISS INDICTMENT AGAINST
) DEFENDANT GOLDFINGER COIN &
15 GOLDFINGER COIN & BULLION, ) BULLION, INC., WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
INC., ) AND
16 ) 2) TO DISMISS AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S
Defendant. ) MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY
17 )
) Hearing date: May 4, 2009
18 ) Time: 10:00 a.m.
19
20 I.
21 INTRODUCTION
22 The opposition of defendant Goldfinger Coin & Bullion, Inc.
23 (“Goldfinger” or “defendant”) to the government’s motion to
24 dismiss (1) the indictment and (2) defendant’s motion for return
25 of property, seeks to convince the Court that it would be better
26 to allow an essentially defunct corporation to continue
27 litigating an equitable motion for its sole benefit to recover
28 assets than to allow that same corporation to simply file a claim
Case 2:08-cr-00224-PSG Document 144 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 2 of 7
2
Case 2:08-cr-00224-PSG Document 144 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 3 of 7
3
Case 2:08-cr-00224-PSG Document 144 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 4 of 7
1 the motion was pending before the appellate court, and then
2 argued that the appeal was moot because the property no longer
3 existed. The court found that the government could not divest
4 the appellate court of jurisdiction by destroying the property at
5 issue. Martinson is, therefore, inapposite. Here, the
6 government has brought the seized property to the Court in a
7 formal judicial proceeding that, unlike either the criminal case
8 or the defendant’s motion, will result in adjudication of the
9 rights of all potential claimants to the property.
10 B. Defendant’s Remaining Authorities Do Not Apply
11 Defendant also argues that the authorities relied upon by
12 the government are not supportive of its argument because those
13 authorities did not arise from facts identical to the instant
14 case. For example, it attempts to distinguish $8,050.00 in U.S.
15 Currency v. United States, 307 F. Supp. 2d 922, 926-27 (N.D. Ohio
16 2004), United States v. Elias, 9211 F.2d 870, 873 (9th Cir. 1990)
17 and Haltiwanger v. United States, 494 F. Supp. 2d 927 (N.D. Ill.
18 2007) on the ground that the government initiated administrative
19 forfeiture proceedings in those cases, but could not do so here.
20 To the contrary, none of those cases turned on the type of civil
21 forfeiture proceedings commenced by the government. Rather, the
22 focus was on the indisputable proposition that equitable relief
23 under Rule 41 is not available where the movant has a legal
24 remedy available to it, whether that legal remedy is in the form
25 of administrative forfeiture proceedings (which, if contested,
26 will result in the filing of a civil judicial forfeiture action)
27 or a judicial action in the first instance.
28
4
Case 2:08-cr-00224-PSG Document 144 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 5 of 7
5
Case 2:08-cr-00224-PSG Document 144 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 6 of 7
6
Case 2:08-cr-00224-PSG Document 144 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 7 of 7